Talk:Time-Turner
Image Alright, seriously. Whoever is switching the image of the actual prop to the replica needs to stop, please. There's no good reason for using an undetailed, unprecise replica, in place of the ACTUAL Time-Turner. Vokson (talk) 18:20, June 10, 2013 (UTC) Should the image really be of a collectible replica, instead of the one seen in the film? I would think a screenshot (or art from the book, if applicable) is preferable. Oread 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC) :I agree, the image should be of the time-turner as it is seen in the books or films. however, I will say that utilising images of replicas might be preferable in some cases, where said object is barely visible. That's something that we probably need a policy on, so I've reverted for now. The image isn't the best quality (I should know - I originally uploaded it) and could probably do with a better image. - [[User:Cavalier One|'Cavalier One']](''Wizarding Wireless Network'') 07:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ::I think, that a collectible replica is preferable here. On the current image (a replica) you can see a lot of details, that you can't see in the film --Thorning 20:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC) :::I think, we should make a vote --Thorning 13:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC) :::I suggest using the uploaded close-up, of the screen used Time Turner -- Buckethead35 20:38, August 27, 2011 (UTC) ::: ::: ::: Time-Turner.png|Current image (replica) Time-Turner.gif|Video from film A Silver Time-Turner.JPG|Silver Replica Time-Turner.jpg|Close-up look from film TimeTurner.PNG|A clean, close-up of the Time Turner. Current image (replica) (+4) *--Thorning 13:33, April 17, 2010 (UTC) *--BachLynn23 13:31, August 2, 2010 (UTC) * 20:59, May 1, 2011 (UTC) *-- DisturbedLemon 19:55, May 9, 2011 (UTC) *--Harry granger 20:07, May 9, 2011 (UTC) *--Joe.Blanchard4 02:23, June 14, 2012 (UTC) 21:23 , June 13, 2012 (UTC) Video from film (+0) Silver Replica (+0) Close-up look from film (+1) An image from a canonical source should definitely take precedence. There also seem to be a few slight differences between this image and the replica.--'Matoro183 (Talk)' 20:58, May 9, 2011 (UTC) Effect on Human age I've removed the following sentences from the Time Turner article for reasons listed below: "It is also unknown what the effect of living what is essentially another year had on Hermione, whether her use of the Time-Turner for such an extended period of time added an entire year to her physical life." Nowhere is it stated that Hermione was using it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Rather, it was used so that she could attend classes that occured simultaneously. She was also only attending three more classes than Harry and Ron (Arithmancy, Ancient Runes, and Muggle Studies) and neither of them required Time Turners. If it is assumed that she used it an average of 3 hours per day, 5 days per week for the 9 months of the Hogwarts school year (which is a generous assumption since she dropped Divination around Easter, and not all classes are stated to take place daily), that would add up to only 25 extra days in total. :This logic seems pretty sound. However, even if Hermione only added 25 days to her life, it may have still had a significant impact. It means she would've turned 17 a month before her officially-recognized 17th birthday on September 19, 1996. Thus, The Trace may have expired on her early, allowing her to do magic outside of Hogwarts without getting caught. But I suppose that all depends on whether expiry of The Trace is based on one's recorded birthdate or on the age of one's body. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) ::Weren't there references in the book or whether hints, that she was also using it to get her homework done. I was under the impression that the only way she could get all her homework done, and help Hagrid with Buckbeak's trial, was to use the time-turner. There was also that spot where she turned back time, but then fell asleep and didn't make it to her Charm's class, I can't remember where it was, I just remember Harry or Ron saying how she was right behind them before entering Charms, but then she was gone and they later found her asleep in the common room studying. Which also showed that using it was taking a toll on her. --BachLynn23 13:43, August 2, 2010 (UTC) :::I'd have to agree with Starstuff, I'm going to take a leap and say that maybe they dont age while there are two of them (while one was under time-turner use). I once had this huge debate with some nerd friends and they all thought this was very plausible. I don't know how it would work, but this is magic. I'm going to put the part back in, with some edits; here's a copy for you; :::"It is unknown what the effect of excessive time-turner use might produce. The user might still age while within an hour produced by the time-turner, and if so, then for students such as Hermione, constant use might age her faster, adding day, or even a week or month onto her life. It is also unknown how this applies later on in life. If Hermione was perhaps a month older by using the time-turner her third year, then anatomy wise her seventeenth birthday might arrive a month earlier than her birthdate might indicate, and perhaps the Trace might also have been lifted earlier as well. A theory speculated by fans is that maybe while there are two users (meaning while one user is there by a time-turner) that they will not age. To illistrate this; Hermione goes to Charms class and since everything is natural, she is aging. Once that class finishes, she uses the time-turner to retreat an hour so she can also attend her Potions class, she is under the effects of the time-turner, and does not age. Once the Charms Hermione disappears because of the time-turner, the Potions Hermione starts to age again." :::Please shoot this down if you don't like, but I believe it's a very important part of the article, and cant be left out. 21:26, May 1, 2011 (UTC) :::--Oh, and by the way, I just made an account, so I'm now DisturbedLemon 21:58, May 1, 2011 (UTC) Edits to page Wouldn't Minerva have owned it if she allowed Hermione to use one? Zach (TDADJ) The awesomeness Thank me later. 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) No, it was the ministry's, and McGonagall convinced the ministry to lend Hermione one. 21:26, May 1, 2011 (UTC) Were all the Time-Turners destroyed at the Department of Mysteries?--Jj7362 16:11, February 27, 2010 (UTC) :In book 6, when they are talking to Hagrid about why they couldn't continue Care of Magical creatures, when Hagrid mentions time-turners, Hermione says, "We couldn't have done. We smashed the entire stock of Ministry Time-Turners when we were there last summer. It was in the Daily Prophet." --BachLynn23 13:43, August 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Remember the scene in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries where a shelf keep being destroyed and then would rewind and repair itself, it was implied that the shelf was holding Time-turners. --JKoch (Owl Me!) 15:09, August 2, 2010 (UTC) What Happens? I have got a question. What exactly happened to the Time-Turner? I only saw it in the 3rd movie and after that Hermione just wears it. Was it destroyed or handed down through generations. Thanks SlytherinBabe 01:59, July 7, 2010 (UTC)SlytherinBabe ;> :At the end of her third year, she returned the Time-Turner and dropped Muggle Studies. That way she could have a normal schedule, as taking all of those classes was putting a terrible strain on her. Also, please stop leaving messages in boldface and italics. --JKoch (Owl Me!) 02:06, July 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Also, in the books, the Time-Turner is returned to the Time Room in the Department of Mysteries, and is destroyed there during the battle at the end of . —Josiah Rowe 00:23, November 30, 2010 (UTC) Question I don't understand this: "Although the Time Turner could allow the user of it change other people's futures (eg.Death), it is impossible for the person in the future time where the user has came from to have already died in his own time." What does this mean? -- 02:49, July 29, 2010 (UTC) :Yea, I don't get it either, and my head hurts now trying to figure it out, lol! If no one can make sense of this, it needs to either be reworded or taken out entirely. I want to say that it is supposed to mean that if person "A" travels from their time into the future, they can't have already died.....? That's sort of obvious though, if that's what it was supposed to mean, because obviously if you are dead you can't travel into the future. --BachLynn23 13:48, August 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Considering that the Time Turner seems to send the user in one time period to different time periods, I think it means that the event the "user A of the time turner from time T" changes in time "U" (after time T) will be futile if "A in time U" is considered dead at that period. For example, if the user A from the year 2016 tries to change person B's fate in 2030, A will succeed. But if A dies at 2020 and thus is considered dead in 2030, although A from 2016 is alive, A can't change B's fate. (Sorry for the bad explanation: I did my best, but...(sigh)) Gryffinwiththequill (talk) 16:51, February 5, 2016 (UTC) Past vs. Future The Time Turner follows the Self-Consistancy Principle so how have there been witches and wizards killing their past selves? I mean, watch the rescue of Buckbeak and Sirius. In Hagrid's Hut, a vase split in half, Hermione found an ammonite fossil and Harry felt something hit the back of his head. That was Hermione throwing ammonite fossils to alert them that the excution party is coming. Lupin heard a werewolf howl. That was Hermione calling Lupin to save Harry's life. And when Harry saved himself and Sirius from the Dementors, before someone who looked like James Potter cast a Patronus but it couldn't have been James because James is dead and Harry looks a lot like his father. So how would someone kill himself? If you had a fight with yourself, the fight will end up the same as before so you can't kill your past self. SeanWheeler 22:43, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :I wanna say that the concept goes something like that if you kill your future self, you cease to exist. There are a few theories in how time travel would actually work if it were possible. That said, even though Hermione knew that she was spending the year traveling back and forth through time for classes and study, when the fossils were thrown she no reason to think that her future self was outside throwing fossils, but later in the movie when her future self was out there, she only then understood who had thrown the fossils and why, she hesitated then just like Harry did at the Lake with the dementors, she was wondering why their past selves weren't leaving until she saw the fossils and put two and two together. Then when she hit past Harry in the head, future Harry sitting next to her suddenly felt the hit and his head hurt. --BachLynn23 23:24, August 14, 2010 (UTC) Um... Since Hermione was not with Ron and Harry after using a time turner, doesn't that mean that technically she didn't show up for class? Her homework would never be turned in, how did she do it? I mean since she and hairy used it later, shouldn't they have disappeared from hag rids hut? Shouldn't there be like a lot of Hermiones running around--Courage the Cowardly User 07:42, October 3, 2010 (UTC) :Well I thought the same thing until I worked it out in my head. Say there is a person (A), they stay in a spot for one hour, and then go 100 feet away (lets pretend travel time doesn't exist). Then they use a time turner to go back an hour. Now we have two of the same person at the same time (lets call the time traveler person B), this is how Hermione was able to attend more than one class at a time. Now, when the hour is over, person A goes to that spot 100 feet away pulls out their time turner, spins the rings, and vanishes out of thin air. From this point on, person B is the only copy of that person in existence until the time turner is used again. Does that make sense? Image Can we move one of the Pics from the article to the infobox, makes senese to me....? T-888 05:53, November 21, 2011 (UTC) 'How did they end up in the great hall?' when its used in the hospitel wing they end up in the great hall the wiki says they end up where thier past self was but this is not true as they had enogh time to run and hide befor the past ones showed up. further its mentiond on pottermore that somone went back in time befor thier birth and messed stuff up wich is why laws are so strict on time travil. they could not go back that far as half of them is in thier mom and half is in thier dad. 8bitgamer (talk) 20:33, April 15, 2015 (UTC) :A) That's true. Perhaps it would be more correct to say they appear near where their past selves were. :B) Eloise Mintumble used a different spell than the Hour-Reversal Charm used in Time-Turners, so she wasn't necessarily limited to the same concept of having to appear in the same place as her (non-existent) past self. Perhaps this is one reason why her past excursion was so disastrous, in fact (though that would just be speculation). -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:55, April 16, 2015 (UTC)